I've hesitated to contribute to this thread, mainly because I was associated with the JSF programme and don't want to get into the 'I can't tell you why I'm saying this' situation that LO points up. But there are a few aspects that I might be able to assist with.
There seems to be an opinion that RVLs are a response to F-35B weight issues. Partly right, but mostly wrong, in my view.
Partly right, because it's a powered lift aircraft, and will always have a challenge with weight. When your minimum flying speed is zero, and it's all down to balancing aircraft mass on the jets, you will always be looking to get weight out. F-35B weight problems have been very publicly aired (contrast with some other aircraft programmes one could mention) and were very significant, which is why the aircraft was extensively revised. But, the weight issues actually affected all 3 variants, especially the CV, and they have all benefitted from the weight reduction effort. I'm sure that it will continue through the life of the aircraft, as will work to increase thrust in the hover at higher temperatures.
Mostly wrong, though, because the UK wants the aircraft to do more than it was required to. The programme adopted a single US definition for 'hot day', and this does not cover certain conditions on certain days in certain parts of the world. The UK have commissioned a number of studies into how the 35B can bring more back to the deck in these conditions, and RVLs came out of those.
The folk looking into RVLs are taking a very measured, pragmatic and informed approach to the issue and as far as I know, all the issues raised here are being addressed. A couple of points to consider:
Firstly, comparing braking performance of F-35B to Harrier is not viable. Harrier braking is really awful by any standards (it was actually deficient in the 60s). The gear layout isn't good for braking, the brakes are tiny and the controls are fairly primitive. F-35B has a really meaty set of brakes on well located gears, with state of the art controls and backup systems.
Secondly, I agree that landing on a deck with aircraft, people or stuff in front of you is a really average idea. I'd like to see the CVF team look at doing RVLs across the deck, using the landing area that comes from the deck's ability to accommodate an arrested landing layout. Painting a second, angled set of lines across the deck (or using suitable lighting systems) seems to me a good way to give the aircraft somewhere safer to go in an emergency.
Finally, moving about on deck - I'd expect the CVF deck to operate far more like a CVN, where most of the moves are carried out by taxying the aircraft under power, rather than using tractors. There's enough space to do so, if you are worked up and have practiced it.
Hope this post helps the thread along,
regards
Engines